119 Ministries

[JLB]

So, the "food laws" were added at Sinai? Then the Lord said to Noah, “Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you are righteous before me in this generation. Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate, and seven pairs of the birds of the heavens also, male and female, to keep their offspring alive on the face of all the earth. (Gen. 7:1-3 ESV) I guess Noah must have had a real problem with that, since God wouldn't explain clean and unclean animals until over 1000 years later. I wonder how he knew which ones God was talking about. And as for the special feast days... And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. (Gen. 1:14-15 ESV) The Hebrew word translated as "seasons" is "moedim". That's the word used to refer to God's "appointed times" Passover, the Days of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of First Fruits, the Feast of Weeks, the Day of Trumpets, the Day of Atonement and the Feast of Tabernacles. And guess what... They all coincide with specific phases of the moon. The TOG

All of the Law was added.

16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. Colossians 2:16

Physical food, or drink or special days which coincide with the sun, moon or stars, Sabbaths ... etc are not what pleases God.

Noah obeyed God and built the Ark, because God said so.

That pleased God.

If you want to spend your life that God gave you, reenacting special days that were a shadow of Christ, then that is your choice.

If you want to wear a Jewish costume or says Jewish phrases because you think that is what pleases God, then that is your choice.

If you want to eat special Jewish Kosher food, because you think that is what pleases God, go for it man!

If you want to celebrate Saturday, the way it is taught in Moses Law, and you never start a fire or push an elevator button, again your choice
If you think you need to get all the yeast out of your house on the week of Passover, that is your choice...

Without faith, it is impossible to please God.

Anything that is not from faith is sin. Romans 14:23


JLB

 

[Ryan]

@Deborah13 the sacrifice of bulls and goats never, ever took away sin. If it did, Jesus died needlessly. If Jesus was the fulfillment of the sacrifices in the Levitical system, then all the more reason to study what he fulfilled. There was never a sacrifice for an intentional sin. The only remedy was repentance, or teshuvah which is sadly misunderstood in our thinking and we have removed ourselves from the origin of that word and what it meant.

No the blood of the animal was never what actually took away sin. I don't care if it was intentional or not. It is repentance and forgiveness, that takes away sin.
King David knew this and repented. Yes, he was tempted in the adultery but the murder was intentional to cover his sin.

How do you see that we have "removed ourselves from that original meaning? I think this is very close if not exactly what most believers believe.
http://www.ou.org/chagim/elul/foursteps.html

Shov must be before repentance. For it is the desire to be in Him and understanding the goodness of God brings one to repentance. That we can run to Him.


Can there be a temple on the temple mount without a High Priest?

When John hollered to the Pharisees to repent, what were they to turn back to?

And for the temple, it is like saying you can play a football game without a quarterback.

@Ryan
The same with 'Rabbi', it's a Hebrew word, in the Hebrew language. In English, one would say 'teacher'. It I said 'teacher' to my pastor would he say, that's Jewish. I don't think so, he may be satisfied in that I was actually learning something from him.
In fact, if I said 'Teacher' to Jesus, would He be offended because I addressed Him in my own language?

Jesus was often called Rabbi as in John 1:38. It was an office, title, or a teacher which was very highly honored and sought after by the Jews. People desired to have this title of prestige and respect. Being a Rabbi, the people afforded them the choice seats and the general prestige. But Jesus warned them not to do this, avoid the public honors and praises that came with being called a Rabbi Matthew 23:5-8. It meant more then teacher, and the idea and word is intrinsically woven and enmeshed in Jewish culture. Even our mental image of what Jesus looked like has been shaped from centuries of indoctrination. I submit he looked less like this:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sLl8acW5uag/UVWvHVKESZI/AAAAAAAAD1A/fVFeSwITDjI/s320/jesuscrist.gif

And instead looked more like this.

http://files.myopera.com/RootsOfFaith/albums/697645/thumbs/YeshuaReading_Torah.jpg_thumb.jpg

Jesus was Jewish from birth, raised a Jew, died a Jew, and was King of the Jews. So it is beyond me why we want to portray him as something that he wasn't.

 

[JLB]

@Deborah13 the sacrifice of bulls and goats never, ever took away sin. If it did, Jesus died needlessly. If Jesus was the fulfillment of the sacrifices in the Levitical system, then all the more reason to study what he fulfilled. There was never a sacrifice for an intentional sin. The only remedy was repentance, or teshuvah which is sadly misunderstood in our thinking and we have removed ourselves from the origin of that word and what it meant.

No the blood of the animal was never what actually took away sin. I don't care if it was intentional or not. It is repentance and forgiveness, that takes away sin.
King David knew this and repented. Yes, he was tempted in the adultery but the murder was intentional to cover his sin.

How do you see that we have "removed ourselves from that original meaning? I think this is very close if not exactly what most believers believe.
http://www.ou.org/chagim/elul/foursteps.html

Shov must be before repentance. For it is the desire to be in Him and understanding the goodness of God brings one to repentance. That we can run to Him.


Can there be a temple on the temple mount without a High Priest?

When John hollered to the Pharisees to repent, what were they to turn back to?

And for the temple, it is like saying you can play a football game without a quarterback.

@Ryan
The same with 'Rabbi', it's a Hebrew word, in the Hebrew language. In English, one would say 'teacher'. It I said 'teacher' to my pastor would he say, that's Jewish. I don't think so, he may be satisfied in that I was actually learning something from him.
In fact, if I said 'Teacher' to Jesus, would He be offended because I addressed Him in my own language?

Jesus was often called Rabbi as in John 1:38. It was an office, title, or a teacher which was very highly honored and sought after by the Jews. People desired to have this title of prestige and respect. Being a Rabbi, the people afforded them the choice seats and the general prestige. But Jesus warned them not to do this, avoid the public honors and praises that came with being called a Rabbi Matthew 23:5-8. It meant more then teacher, and the idea and word is intrinsically woven and enmeshed in Jewish culture. Even our mental image of what Jesus looked like has been shaped from centuries of indoctrination. I submit he looked less like this:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sLl8acW5uag/UVWvHVKESZI/AAAAAAAAD1A/fVFeSwITDjI/s320/jesuscrist.gif

And instead looked more like this.

http://files.myopera.com/RootsOfFaith/albums/697645/thumbs/YeshuaReading_Torah.jpg_thumb.jpg

Jesus was Jewish from birth, raised a Jew, died a Jew, and was King of the Jews. So it is beyond me why we want to portray him as something that he wasn't.

The pharisee's were to turn away from Judaism the religion, and turn to God.


Jesus is a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.

Jesus is God manifested in the flesh.

Jesus came to represent the kingdom of God, not the religion of Judaism.

Jesus submitted to the ministry of John and was baptized, which has NOTHING to do with Judaism.


The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it. Luke 16:16

Jesus became flesh to confirm The Covenant that He made with Abraham, not to confirm Judaism.


Why people try to make out Jesus to be something that He is not is beyond me.


JLB

 

[Deborah13]

I just want to point something out here.
Under the Torah law as stated in Ezekiel 44:7-9 Anyone who was not a flesh circumcised person cannot enter the temple. This does not mean by a doctor if you even now under Torah law. You would have to go through the Jewish circumcision ceremony to become a Jew and have access to the sanctuary.

Now notice what the Jews accuse Paul of in Acts 21. Paul observed all Torah law?

28 crying out, “Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, the law, and this place; and furthermore he also brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.”

 

[Deborah13]

When John hollered to the Pharisees to repent, what were they to turn back to?

And for the temple, it is like saying you can play a football game without a quarterback.

They were to turn back to the Law and the Prophets in their original intent. If they had been like the Bereans they may have seen Jesus in both. Bereans searched the scriptures and were saved.

I like your analogy. Broncos without Peyton? Steelers without Big Ben?

So who could they choose for their High Priest, if the Messiah Jesus is the only High Priest under the order of Melchizedek?
How could there be any other?

And instead looked more like this.

http://files.myopera.com/RootsOfFait....jpg_thumb.jpg

Jesus was Jewish from birth, raised a Jew, died a Jew, and was King of the Jews. So it is beyond me why we want to portray him as something that he wasn't.

I completely agree with you in this. Lexy and I were just talking about that. I heard a Baptist almost 40 yrs ago say to a man after church, that when he knew better he would want to shave off his short, nicely trimmed beard. The man said why Jesus had a beard. The Baptist said no he didn't, that's just in pictures. Huh?

In the story of the woman with the issue of blood, when it says she touched the hem of His garment, I personally believe she touched the tzitzit, with it's blue thread. But that is just me spiritualizing beyond the content of the text.

 

[Ryan]

The pharisee's were to turn away from Judaism the religion, and turn to God.

Man made traditions, not the God ordained commandments.

Jesus is a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.

Amen

Jesus is God manifested in the flesh.

Amen

Jesus came to represent the kingdom of God, not the religion of Judaism.

Matthew 15:24
But He answered and said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

Paul said to the Jew first (Romans 1:16).

Acts 17:11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.


Now show me from the same scriptures that the Bereans used, where it said Jesus was to be accepted as the King of the Jews and would change the times, seasons, sabbaths, laws? All I can come up with from the same Bible the Bereans had was that the anti-messiah would be the one who did those things. Not the Blessed Redeemer.

Daniel 7:25 He will speak out against the Most High and wear down the saints of the Highest One, and he will intend to make alterations in times and in law; and they will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time.

Jesus submitted to the ministry of John and was baptized, which has NOTHING to do with Judaism.

The foundation of baptism is found in Genesis 1. Baptism was nothing new when John came on the scene.

The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it. Luke 16:16

And it goes onto to say...17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail.

Powerful stuff there. Again scripture must be read in context, and I believe verses like 17 is God's way of saying if you really believe I am changing anything, don't bank on it for a second cause my laws do not fail. Gotta love him.

Jesus became flesh to confirm The Covenant that He made with Abraham, not to confirm Judaism.

Matthew 17:11; Mark 9:12; Acts 15:16 I see a picture of restoration, not transformation to something else. Hence is Dispensationalism Darwinism thread.

In short, he came to renew the broken covenant Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 with Israel and Judah. All Jews are Israelites, but not all Israelites are Jews. Yet they were observant to the Torah and that is another story not to get into here.

Why people try to make out Jesus to be something that He is not is beyond me.

I would love to share with you the Jewish, Torah observant Messiah, but I fear it would fall on dead ears anyways.

 

[Ryan]

I just want to point something out here.
Under the Torah law as stated in Ezekiel 44:7-9 Anyone who was not a flesh circumcised person cannot enter the temple. This does not mean by a doctor if you even now under Torah law. You would have to go through the Jewish circumcision ceremony to become a Jew and have access to the sanctuary.].”

It is our Father's house, who are we to decide how we should, or shouldn't present ourselved to Yahweh? Getting circumcised has nothing with becoming a Jew. It is solely how if we want to come into his Holy presence, our obligations to do so. His temple, his house, he makes the rules no matter how difficult it is for us to understand it. I actually think of it as being a safety net for us, Nadab and Abihu come to mind and offering strange fire and they were consumed. God is a God of order and decorum, and to come into his presence is dangerous due to his 3 times Holiness.

Isaiah 6:5
Then I said, “Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I live among a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts.”

Now notice what the Jews accuse Paul of in Acts 21. Paul observed all Torah law?

28 crying out, “Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, the law, and this place; and furthermore he also brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.”

Acts 15:1
[ The Council at Jerusalem ] Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, YOU CANNOT BE SAVED.”

Understanding this argument is key to understanding the circumcision issue. The whole argument were Judaizers saying you MUST be circumcised to be saved. They were not arguing whether it was a commandment or not. Just like there was no arguing whether stealing is a commandment. To prove this, he consented to the paying and completing the nazarite vow from earlier Acts 18:18; Acts 21:22-24. So when it comes to verse 28, the previous actions were meant to prevent this response from people so he could prove he was not preaching people not to follow the law.

To argue one has to be circumcised to be saved is the same thing as arguing if one has to baptized to be saved. It is the same idea. They would be having this same argument if the Judaizers were arguing that one must be baptized to be saved. It is beyond me how one can say they don't have to be circumcised to be saved, yet tell others that baptism clinches the deal so to speak with being saved.

When John hollered to the Pharisees to repent, what were they to turn back to?

And for the temple, it is like saying you can play a football game without a quarterback.

They were to turn back to the Law and the Prophets in their original intent. If they had been like the Bereans they may have seen Jesus in both. Bereans searched the scriptures and were saved.

I like your analogy. Broncos without Peyton? Steelers without Big Ben?

So who could they choose for their High Priest, if the Messiah Jesus is the only High Priest under the order of Melchizedek?
How could there be any other?

There is one other, and his name is Aaron Rodgers.

I submit the Bereans were already saved before they searched the scriptures. It was no secret that around that time period, they were awaiting the Messiah to come onto the scene. So they searched to scriptures to confirm it was so and I guarantee they used the Deuteronomy 18 test to confirm whether it was true or not

And instead looked more like this.

http://files.myopera.com/RootsOfFait....jpg_thumb.jpg

Jesus was Jewish from birth, raised a Jew, died a Jew, and was King of the Jews. So it is beyond me why we want to portray him as something that he wasn't.

I completely agree with you in this. Lexy and I were just talking about that. I heard a Baptist almost 40 yrs ago say to a man after church, that when he knew better he would want to shave off his short, nicely trimmed beard. The man said why Jesus had a beard. The Baptist said no he didn't, that's just in pictures. Huh?

In the story of the woman with the issue of blood, when it says she touched the hem of His garment, I personally believe she touched the tzitzit, with it's blue thread. But that is just me spiritualizing beyond the content of the text.

It is not spiritualizing anything. If you understand Jesus lived a perfectly sinless and Torah observant life, you would know he wore tzitits. It is a commandment, he did it and lived it out.

 

[JLB]

But He answered and said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.â€

What does that have to do with anything.

The Man Christ Jesus was a Jew, that doesn't mean He was a follower of Judaism, the religion.

The Covenant we are under is the Covenant Jesus made with Abraham. That is not the religion of Judaism.

And it goes onto to say...17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail.

The Law of Moses calls for a Levitical Priesthood, a Tabernacle or Temple, animal sacrifices, special food laws...

The Law of God's Kingdom are Eternal and were seen in the Garden as well as the ten Commandments.

I would love to share with you the Jewish, Torah observant Messiah, but I fear it would fall on dead ears anyways.

Did John the Baptist keep the Law of Moses?

Did John the Baptist observe the feasts?

Did John the Baptist go to the Temple to sacrifice animals?

John the baptist came to Baptize people, Levite Priests included, for them to show repentance.

Were the followers of Judaism supposed to come to John and be baptized, or was John to go to them and be baptized.

Jesus came to John to be baptized, to fulfill righteousness.

Baptism was not in the Law of Moses.

Judaism is a man made religion, a mixture of the Law and the traditions of Men.

The religion of Judaism today, does not recognize Jesus as Lord or Messiah.

The followers of Judaism will be the ones to build the New temple, and resume animal sacrifices, and embrace the Lawless one as Messiah.

In short, he came to renew the broken covenant Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 with Israel and Judah. All Jews are Israelites, but not all Israelites are Jews. Yet they were observant to the Torah and that is another story not to get into here.

The Law was not renewed. The Law was added to the Covenant of Abraham until the Seed should come.

The Seed has come, and now the Law of Moses, the shadow has vanished away.

The Covenant of Abraham was renewed, and has always included Gentiles.

I would love to share with you the Jewish, Torah observant Messiah, but I fear it would fall on dead ears anyways.

When you stop trying to justify the religion of Judaism, you might find that people will take you more seriously about your perspective of the Messiah.


Please make a list of the Laws of God that Abraham walked in that we are to walk in today, that are also seen in the Law of Moses.

Or if you prefer, list the Laws of God Moses walked in and kept as he walked with God.

The common denominator of Abraham, Moses and John the baptist is, they walked with God and obeyed His Voice and learned from Him, as Adam was called to do.

The did not go by a set of Rules that come from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they walked with God and partook of every word that proceeded out of His mouth, which is life.

This is what the New Covenant is about, not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt...

The New Covenant is for all to walk with God and enter His Presence, and to know Him.

We are now sons of God, are have the right to partake of His life daily.

This was not so, under the old covenant where only the Levites could enter the holy place.

Now, we all can know Him, from the least of us to the greatest.


JLB

 

[Ryan]

[MENTION=90220]JLB[/MENTION]

Mark 1:44 and He *said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.”

Here was a perfect opportunity for Jesus to say no longer is the Law of Moses instructions for sacrifice to be observed. Yet he commands him to follow the law. Never did he renounce Judaism and the Law of Moses, only the traditions that annulled the Law of Moses. Just a cursory search of the Gospels will show you that.

If he came to change his Father's commandments, why would he rail against the Pharisees for their traditions that were taking away his commandments? Can you see the absurdity in that thinking? Jesus ripped into the Pharisee's for making traditions burdensome to follow the Sabbath properly. In Luke 6 he had the perfect opportunity to say, hey guys, no longer follow the Sabbath because I am Lord of the Sabbath and it is to burdensome for you guys. But no, he provided proper interpretation of it. So does it make sense for him in one breathe to provide proper interpretation of it, then to know have this idea that the Sabbath is no longer for us?

Just gonna paint a picture here, but sometimes people remark to my wife what a good guy I am. My wife always gives them a puzzled look like "are we really talking about the same guy?" In jest though. So the Jesus you are describing is not the one I am talking about. Jesus was and is the walking Law of Moses, and to take one away from the other is taking away from the very character of who he is. You can't have one absent from the other. It is impossible, and Jesus would never, ever teach anybody to not follow his Father's commandments. I know why people look at Jesus as one who done away with the Law of Moses. It is very clear. We will carry on with our own traditions while completely neglecting God's commandments. That includes the weekly Sabbaths, Feast Days, new moons, food, mezuzahs, etc. God speaking of the Messiah in Isaiah 42:21 he will magnify the Law, so things like Passover we can now see Jesus's redemptive work in it.

Matthew 22:3 sounds exactly like talking with those who say the Feasts are no more, yet not understanding the prophetic significance in each one. Have you ever looked at the Feasts as prophecy there JLB?

Back to the OP, 119 Ministries is a good website. Their presentation is a bit dry, but they strive to provide good scriptural teachings. And they have admitted if they find themselves in being in error, they will go back and correct the mistake or interpretation. They seek to glorify God's Word and not themselves, so they are A OK in my books.

 

[JLB]

[MENTION=90220]JLB[/MENTION]

Mark 1:44 and He *said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.”

Here was a perfect opportunity for Jesus to say no longer is the Law of Moses instructions for sacrifice to be observed. Yet he commands him to follow the law. Never did he renounce Judaism and the Law of Moses, only the traditions that annulled the Law of Moses. Just a cursory search of the Gospels will show you that.

If he came to change his Father's commandments, why would he rail against the Pharisees for their traditions that were taking away his commandments? Can you see the absurdity in that thinking? Jesus ripped into the Pharisee's for making traditions burdensome to follow the Sabbath properly. In Luke 6 he had the perfect opportunity to say, hey guys, no longer follow the Sabbath because I am Lord of the Sabbath and it is to burdensome for you guys. But no, he provided proper interpretation of it. So does it make sense for him in one breathe to provide proper interpretation of it, then to know have this idea that the Sabbath is no longer for us?

Just gonna paint a picture here, but sometimes people remark to my wife what a good guy I am. My wife always gives them a puzzled look like "are we really talking about the same guy?" In jest though. So the Jesus you are describing is not the one I am talking about. Jesus was and is the walking Law of Moses, and to take one away from the other is taking away from the very character of who he is. You can't have one absent from the other. It is impossible, and Jesus would never, ever teach anybody to not follow his Father's commandments. I know why people look at Jesus as one who done away with the Law of Moses. It is very clear. We will carry on with our own traditions while completely neglecting God's commandments. That includes the weekly Sabbaths, Feast Days, new moons, food, mezuzahs, etc. God speaking of the Messiah in Isaiah 42:21 he will magnify the Law, so things like Passover we can now see Jesus's redemptive work in it.

Matthew 22:3 sounds exactly like talking with those who say the Feasts are no more, yet not understanding the prophetic significance in each one. Have you ever looked at the Feasts as prophecy there JLB?

Back to the OP, 119 Ministries is a good website. Their presentation is a bit dry, but they strive to provide good scriptural teachings. And they have admitted if they find themselves in being in error, they will go back and correct the mistake or interpretation. They seek to glorify God's Word and not themselves, so they are A OK in my books.

Had He been to the cross yet?

 

[Fyre]

So what do they say about:

Romans 2:29
Colossians 2:11-12
John 3:3

I think my favorite teaching of theirs is How not to kindle a fire on Saturday.

If you have an electric stove or Gas, its ok because you don't have to "work" to start the fire.


JLB

James says the tongue is a fire.

Well, he says it setteth on fire the course of nature

Speaking of kindling a fire huh?

Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth!

I wonder if they count that?

 

[JLB]

Matthew 22:3 sounds exactly like talking with those who say the Feasts are no more, yet not understanding the prophetic significance in each one. Have you ever looked at the Feasts as prophecy there JLB?

There are beautiful.

The shadows and types and feasts are absolutely amazing.

The depths and richness of God's word is unfathomable.

The Hebrew Idioms and expressions, are also amazing and add a richness and depth to God's word that I am only scratching the surface of.


They have there fulfillment in Christ.

To be conformed to His image is our goal.

Seeking Him is our goal.

Spending time with Him, is our delight.

Walking with Him, is what should be our quest.

To walk with Him in righteousness, to Love Him, by obeying His Voice.

His Voice is where faith comes from.

Faith does not come from studying Jewish commentary.

Faith does not come from wearing special clothing.

Faith does not come from observing special days.

Faith does not come from eating or not eating certain foods.

Faith does not come from cleaning the yeast out of your house during the week of Passover.

Faith comes by hearing God speaking to you.

Faith pleases God.

Anything not of faith is sin.

But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin. Romans 14:23



JLB

 

[Ryan]

[MENTION=90220]JLB[/MENTION]

Mark 1:44 and He *said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the priest and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.”

Here was a perfect opportunity for Jesus to say no longer is the Law of Moses instructions for sacrifice to be observed. Yet he commands him to follow the law. Never did he renounce Judaism and the Law of Moses, only the traditions that annulled the Law of Moses. Just a cursory search of the Gospels will show you that.

If he came to change his Father's commandments, why would he rail against the Pharisees for their traditions that were taking away his commandments? Can you see the absurdity in that thinking? Jesus ripped into the Pharisee's for making traditions burdensome to follow the Sabbath properly. In Luke 6 he had the perfect opportunity to say, hey guys, no longer follow the Sabbath because I am Lord of the Sabbath and it is to burdensome for you guys. But no, he provided proper interpretation of it. So does it make sense for him in one breathe to provide proper interpretation of it, then to know have this idea that the Sabbath is no longer for us?

Just gonna paint a picture here, but sometimes people remark to my wife what a good guy I am. My wife always gives them a puzzled look like "are we really talking about the same guy?" In jest though. So the Jesus you are describing is not the one I am talking about. Jesus was and is the walking Law of Moses, and to take one away from the other is taking away from the very character of who he is. You can't have one absent from the other. It is impossible, and Jesus would never, ever teach anybody to not follow his Father's commandments. I know why people look at Jesus as one who done away with the Law of Moses. It is very clear. We will carry on with our own traditions while completely neglecting God's commandments. That includes the weekly Sabbaths, Feast Days, new moons, food, mezuzahs, etc. God speaking of the Messiah in Isaiah 42:21 he will magnify the Law, so things like Passover we can now see Jesus's redemptive work in it.

Matthew 22:3 sounds exactly like talking with those who say the Feasts are no more, yet not understanding the prophetic significance in each one. Have you ever looked at the Feasts as prophecy there JLB?

Back to the OP, 119 Ministries is a good website. Their presentation is a bit dry, but they strive to provide good scriptural teachings. And they have admitted if they find themselves in being in error, they will go back and correct the mistake or interpretation. They seek to glorify God's Word and not themselves, so they are A OK in my books.

Had He been to the cross yet?

Colossians 2 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

What was nailed to the cross? The sins nailed to the cross. I see nothing else.

 

[Ryan]

Matthew 22:3 sounds exactly like talking with those who say the Feasts are no more, yet not understanding the prophetic significance in each one. Have you ever looked at the Feasts as prophecy there JLB?

There are beautiful.

The shadows and types and feasts are absolutely amazing.

The depths and richness of God's word is unfathomable.

The Hebrew Idioms and expressions, are also amazing and add a richness and depth to God's word that I am only scratching the surface of.


They have there fulfillment in Christ.

To be conformed to His image is our goal.

Seeking Him is our goal.

Spending time with Him, is our delight.

Walking with Him, is what should be our quest.

To walk with Him in righteousness, to Love Him, by obeying His Voice.

His Voice is where faith comes from.

Faith does not come from studying Jewish commentary.

Faith does not come from wearing special clothing.

Faith does not come from observing special days.

Faith does not come from eating or not eating certain foods.

Faith does not come from cleaning the yeast out of your house during the week of Passover.

Faith comes by hearing God speaking to you.

Faith pleases God.

Anything not of faith is sin.

But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin. Romans 14:23



JLB

Biblical Word of the Month - Faith

By: Jeff A. Benner

Behold, he whose soul is not upright in him shall fail, but the righteous shall live by his faith. (Habakkuk 2:4 - ASV)

What does it mean to have "faith" from an Hebraic perspective? In our western minds faith is a mental exercise in knowing that someone or something exists or will act. For instance, if we say "I have faith in God" we are saying "I know that God exists and do what he says he will do".

The Hebrew word for faith is אמונה (emunah - Strong's #530) and is an action oriented word meaning "support". This is important because the Western concept of faith places the action on the one you have faith in, such as "faith in God". But, the Hebrew word אמונה places the action on the one who "supports God". It is not a knowing that God will act, but rather I will do what I can to support God. This idea of support for the word emunah can be seen in Exodus 17:12.

But Moses' hands grew weary; so they took a stone and put it under him, and he sat upon it, and Aaron and Hur held up his hands, one on one side, and the other on the other side; so his hands were steady (emunah)until the going down of the sun.

It is the support/emunah of Aaron and Hur that held of Moses' arms, not the support/emunah of Moses. When we say "I have faith in God", we should be thinking "I will do what I can to support God".

Faith is doing JLB, and Abraham was the quintessential example of one having faithfulness. Faith is an action, not passive.

 

[JLB]

Faith is doing JLB, and Abraham was the quintessential example of one having faithfulness. Faith is an action, not passive.

So you interpret the action of faith as "keeping the Law of Moses"?

The Law is not of faith.

Faith comes by hearing God.

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? James 2:21

The action of faith is obedience to His Voice, obedience to what He commands you to do.


22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? James 2:22

For faith to be complete, then obedience must be complete.

The Law is not of faith.

Anything that is not of faith is sin.


JLB

 

[JLB]

31 But that the world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father gave Me commandment, so I do. Arise, let us go from here. John 14:31

Commandment here is a direct command to do a specific task.

It does not refer to Jesus "keeping the Law".


10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love. John 15:10

Again, the phrase here as I have kept My Father's commandments, does not refer to Jesus "keeping the Law of Moses", but rather every command to heal, deliver, raise the dead... that God The Father sent Him to do.


Jesus demonstrated His love for His Father by doing what God The Father told Him to do.

Jesus showed His Love for His brothers by obeying what God sent Him to do.


JLB

 

[Ryan]

[MENTION=90220]JLB[/MENTION] Galatians has been explained to you in the past. I know you and @AboutSonOfGod had a discussion about it. The point of Galatians were those troublemakers telling the converts they must be circumcised to be saved. It was never about whether the commandments were still to be taught and practiced. It was trying to be justified by works. Look again at Galatians from that context.

Galatians 3:12 However the Torah is not of faith, on the contrary, "He who practices them shall live by them."

Paul is still making a legal connection to the Torah in this verse. He contrast relying on a legal connection as opposed to practicing the Torah as he quotes Leviticus 18:5. In Romans, Paul said those who practice the Torah are the ones saved, because practicing Torah shows you have genuine faith Romans 2:13. Relying on a legal connection to the Torah does not come from faith, because you are placing your trust in something inherent in yourself or something one has accomplished to obtain redemption. IMO

 

[JLB]

@JLB Galatians has been explained to you in the past. I know you and @AboutSonOfGod had a discussion about it. The point of Galatians were those troublemakers telling the converts they must be circumcised to be saved. It was never about whether the commandments were still to be taught and practiced. It was trying to be justified by works. Look again at Galatians from that context.

Galatians 3:12 However the Torah is not of faith, on the contrary, "He who practices them shall live by them."

Paul is still making a legal connection to the Torah in this verse. He contrast relying on a legal connection as opposed to practicing the Torah as he quotes Leviticus 18:5. In Romans, Paul said those who practice the Torah are the ones saved, because practicing Torah shows you have genuine faith Romans 2:13. Relying on a legal connection to the Torah does not come from faith, because you are placing your trust in something inherent in yourself or something one has accomplished to obtain redemption. IMO

The works of faith is not a reference to keeping the Law.
Keeping the law is not of faith, for is is written, those who do all will be blessed.

The action of obedience is what validates faith.

JLB